Compliance of systematic reviews in plastic surgery with the PRISMA statement

Ref ID	186
First Author	S.-Y. Lee
Journal	JAMA FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY
Year Of Publishing	2016
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26719993/
Keywords	• Risk of bias • Low reporting quality • Protocols • Surgery
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Number of systematic reviews included	79
Summary of Findings	The median PRISMA score was 16 (out of 27) for the 79 included systematic reviews of plastic surgery published in 2013 and 2014 in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Reporting was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (5%), presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (18%), presenting the results of subgroup analyses (25%), presenting risk of bias across studies (24%), .
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No